FIRST SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 12877/02 by Vinko ZOVANOVIĆ against Croatia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section) , sitting on 9 January 2003 as a Chamber composed of

Mr C.L. Rozakis , President , Mr G. Bonello , Mr P. Lorenzen , Mrs N. Vajić , Mrs S. Botoucharova , Mr V. Zagrebelsky , Mrs E. Steiner , judges , and Mr S. N IELSEN , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 March 2002,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Vinko Zovanović, is a Croatian citizen, who was born in 1929 and lives in Pula, Croatia. He is represented before the Court by Ms Miroslava Manojlović Motušić, a lawyer practising in Zadar, Croatia.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant , may be summarised as follows.

On 3 May 1991 the applicant’s market booth and the goods locked in it were destroyed in demonstrations.

The responsibility for damages resulting from terrorist acts was regulated by Section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act ( Zakon o obveznim odnosima ) providing that the responsibility lay with the authority whose officers were under duty to prevent such damages.

On 16 June 1992 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zadar Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Zadru ), seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia on the basis of Section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act and from the Croatia Insurance Company ( Croatia Osiguranje ) on the basis of an insurance contract.

On 17 May 1999 the court stayed the proceedings in respect of the Republic of Croatia, pursuant to the above legislation.

On 16 May 2002 the court rejected the applicant’s claim in respect of the Croatia Insurance.

The applicant has not appealed against the first instance judgment.

B. Relevant domestic law

The relevant part of the Civil Obligations Act ( Zakon o obveznim odnosima ) reads as follows:

Section 180(1)

“Responsibility for loss caused by death or bodily injury or by damage or destruction of another’s property, when it results from violent acts or terror or from public demonstrations or manifestations, lies with the ... authority whose officers were under a duty, according to the laws in force, to prevent such loss.”

The relevant parts of the Act Amending the Civil Obligations Act ( Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama Zakona o obveznim odnosima – Official Gazette no. 7/1996) read as follows:

Section 1

“Section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act (the Official Gazette nos. 53/91, 73/91 and 3/94) shall be repealed.”

Section 2

“Proceedings for damages instituted under section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act shall be stayed.

The proceedings referred to in sub-section 1 of this section shall be continued after the enactment of special legislation governing responsibility for damage resulting from terrorist acts.”

The relevant part of the Civil Procedure Act provides:

Section 212

“Proceedings shall be stayed:

...

(6) where another statute so prescribes.”

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains that he has no effective remedy in respect of his claim for damages because Section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act, which regulated the responsibility for damages resulting form terrorist acts, was repealed.

2. The applicant also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the act of destruction of his property violated his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains that he has no effective remedy in respect of his claim for damages because Section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act, which regulated the responsibility for damages resulting form terrorist acts, was repealed. Such a complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:

Article 6 § 1

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal...”

Article 13

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

2. The applicant also complains that the act of destruction of his property violated his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

The Court notes that the events complained of took place in 1991 while the Convention entered into force in respect of Croatia on 5 November 1997.

It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints that he has been deprived of his right of access to court and/or his right to an effective remedy;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Søren N IELSEN Christos R OZAKIS              Deputy Registrar President